Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Embracing Equifinality with Efficiency

Associated organisational unit

Electronic data

  • Limits_of_Acceptability_GLUE_DREAM_Resubmitted_Dec_18_2017

    Rights statement: This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Journal of Hydrology. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Journal of Hydrology, 559, 2018 DOI: 10.1016/j.hydrol.2018.02.026

    Accepted author manuscript, 4.74 MB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY-NC-ND: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Embracing Equifinality with Efficiency: Limits of Acceptability Sampling Using the DREAM(LOA) algorithm

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Published
<mark>Journal publication date</mark>04/2018
<mark>Journal</mark>Journal of Hydrology
Volume559
Number of pages18
Pages (from-to)954-971
Publication StatusPublished
Early online date14/02/18
<mark>Original language</mark>English

Abstract

This essay illustrates some recent developments to the DiffeRential Evolution Adaptive Metropolis (DREAM) MATLAB toolbox of Vrugt, 2016 to delineate and sample the behavioural solution space of set-theoretic likelihood functions used within the GLUE (Limits of Acceptability) framework (Beven and Binley, 1992; Beven and Freer, 2001; Beven, 2006 ; Beven et al., 2014). This work builds on the DREAM(ABC) algorithm of Sadegh and Vrugt, 2014 and enhances significantly the accuracy and CPU-efficiency of Bayesian inference with GLUE. In particular it is shown how lack of adequate sampling in the model space might lead to unjustified model rejection.

Bibliographic note

This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Journal of Hydrology. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Journal of Hydrology, 559, 2018 DOI: 10.1016/j.hydrol.2018.02.026